"Glass ceiling" is the term used to describe barriers that prevent women and

minorities from advancing to management positions in corporations and

organizations. The phrase was first used about 1985 or 1986. Statistics
provided by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) indicated that only 2 percent
of top level management jobs and 5 percent of corporate board positions
were held by women as of 1987. The failure of more women and minorities to
crack the upper levels of corporate management is due to the glass ceiling.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 created a Glass Ceiling Commission to address
these inequities, just as the Glass Ceiling Initiative, created in 1989 by the
DOL under the leadership of Secretary Lynn Martin, had done.

Statistics prove beyond doubt that a glass ceiling existed long before the
term was introduced. These barriers to minority progress had previously
defied clear definition but, in the late 1980s, the glass ceiling became part of
the language of management literature. Several articles in publications such
as the Wall Street Journal detailed the increase of women in administrative
and management level jobs, from 24 to 37 percent over a period from 1976
to 1987. Yet the glass ceiling blocked women from rising to top management
positions as mentioned above. On March 24, 1986, a special 32-page section
of the Wall Street Journal did much to define the glass ceiling for women. The
inclusion of minorities would follow. This report did much to bring full light to
the ceiling in the corporate world. Using interviews and data to highlight the
issues, the Journal report was the first landmark publication of a powerful
voice in employment equity. Another significant work was published in 1987.
Sponsored by the Center for Creative Leadership and written by Ann
Morrison, Breaking the Glass Ceiling synthesized the data and attitudes on
the invisible barriers as well as outline the problems, provided a formula for
success, and described the pattern of future progress in breaking the ceiling.
The conclusions of the study pointed to few true differences between men
and women in psychological, emotional, or intellectual qualities; but the
study found that contradictions in the expectations for women were a major
factor in the glass ceiling. Women were expected to be tough but not display
"macho" characteristics; they were expected to take responsibility yet be
obedient in following orders; and they were expected to be ambitious yet not
to expect equal treatment. Also, the glass ceiling applied to women as a
group, not just individuals.

DOL data supported the independent conclusions of the findings of the

Center for Creative Leadership team and those of the Catalyst, a New York-
based research organization that advised corporations on how to foster the
careers of women. The DOL's analysis of 94 corporate headquarters of
Fortune 1000 companies for a three-year period indicated that of a total of
nearly 150,000 employees, 37.2 percent were women and 15.5 percent were
minorities. Of 31,184 management-level employees, 5,278 (16.9 percent)
were women and 1,885 (6 percent) were minorities. At the executive level,
women represented only 6.6 percent and minorities an even smaller 2.6
percent. Other studies identified similar statistics, another factor that
reinforced other findings and eventually led to greater DOL involvement. In a
separate study, the Catalyst also identified a glass wall, a restriction on
women's lateral mobility, so necessary for gaining relevant corporate
experience. The organization studied employment and advancement trends
for women in financial services, manufacturing, food and beverage industries,
fashion retail merchandising, and high-technology corporations. Women face
this glass wall early in their careers and miss opportunities for progressive
training. Following the wall, the glass ceiling naturally limits upward
advancement.

THE GLASS CEILING INITIATIVE

The glass ceiling spreads beyond the corporate environment. Among the first
institutions to recognize the existence of the invisible barriers was the federal
government. Recognition of dramatic changes in the economy and the
workforce appeared in a formidable report published by the DOL in 1987.
Workforce 2000 was a 117-page document that helped to increase
awareness of the role of women and minorities; it also defined the so-called
"glass ceiling" with its various barriers. Out of Workforce 2000 developed the
Glass Ceiling Initiative, a DOL program intended to survey corporate America
to identify the problems, causes, and solutions to the ceiling. The driving
force behind the initiative was Elizabeth Dole, secretary of labor in the
administration of President George Bush. The Glass Ceiling Initiative called
for an investigation to begin in the fall of 1989. Nine Fortune 500 companies
(representing a broad range of businesses) would be selected at random for
review. Independent compliance reviews were conducted to explore the glass
ceiling fully. Stated goals were to promote a diverse workforce; to promote
corporate conduct conducive to cooperative problem solving; to promote
equal opportunity; and, to establish a DOL blueprint for future reviews at all
management levels. The department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs (OFCCP) was charged with conducting the reviews.

The initiative had four major components: (1) educating DOL officials; (2)
conducting reviews; (3) promoting efforts to remove barriers to minority
advancement; and (4) rewarding contractors who demonstrated exemplary
efforts. The program was designed to produce specific results—including
identifying barriers, eliminating the problems, and increasing awareness of
these barriers and the resulting discrimination. In February 1991 Lynn Martin
replaced Elizabeth Dole and inherited the leadership of the Glass Ceiling
Initiative. The first report from the extensive studies was issued on August 8,
1991.

None of the nine companies under review were cited for discriminatory
practices, but a number of them failed to comply fully with all affirmative
action requirements. The DOL realized that a review of such a small sample
was not an especially scientific study but found ample evidence that the
progress of women and minorities in management positions was blocked by
considerably more than qualifications and career directions. The initiative
found organizational and attitudinal barriers as strong obstacles to minority
advancement. These barriers included three major categories. First was
recruitment practices that centered on word-of-mouth and referral
networking. Additionally, executive search firms and job referral firms used
by the companies ignored many affirmative action/ equal employment
opportunity requirements. Secondly, several career advancement
opportunities were often unavailable to women and minorities. These
included credential-building experiences such as advanced education,
developmental practices, and assignments essential to career enhancement.
The report went further to conclude that if there was not a glass ceiling, there
was a point beyond which women and minorities had not advanced. Minority
advancement was seen as more restrictive than that of women. Corporations
generally ignored responsibility for monitoring equal access and opportunity
for advancement as well as compensation systems. Research data did not
generally support placement patterns and, finally, there was a serious lack of
adequate record keeping. The report also found that the ceiling existed at a
lower level than previously assumed. In summary, the barriers to
advancement for women and minorities created a glass ceiling, and the DOL
was determined to ensure promotion of advancement opportunities
guaranteed by law.

Response to the Glass Ceiling Initiative was predictable—criticisms of flaws in

methodology and the small sample size. But the DOL stood by the
conclusions and urged change and compliance. Almost immediately, the
department continued the compliance reviews in a second round of follow-up
reviews. The report of this series of OFCCP, Pipelines of Progress, was
published in August 1992. Pipelines of Progress had a good news/bad news
approach—numbers of minorities and women participating in higher levels of
management had shown an increase, but the future of change was still
limited by the ever-present ceiling. Corporations had adopted diversity
training and equal opportunity had received a renewed emphasis. Yet the
same employers had failed to recruit for top management from a diverse
candidate pool and had not provided training for minorities and women.
Women with equal or superior educational attainments earned less on
average than men in top level positions. Corporate leadership lacked a firm
commitment to organizational responsibility for equal employment
opportunity. Women expressed concern over access to mobility cited as
necessary for climbing the corporate ladder and being held to different
expectations of performance measures. Finally, Pipelines of Progress
identified creative measures that worked. These included tracking the
progress of women and minorities with advancement potential, ensuring
equal access to corporate developmental opportunities, creating an
environment for a bias-free workplace, and making a conscious effort to hire
qualified women and minorities in entry-level professional positions. The DOL
once again confirmed its commitment to identify and eliminate the glass
ceiling.

In the same year, a second edition of Morrison's Breaking the Glass Ceiling
was published, citing progress made in hurdling the barriers but still
criticizing corrective measures not yet enacted. But the most significant
event after the work of the Glass Ceiling Initiative was the passage of the
sweeping Civil Rights Act of 1991 that included legislation designated the
Glass Ceiling Act of 1991. Sponsored by, among others, Kansas Senator
Robert Dole, the Glass Ceiling Act followed up on the initial findings of the
initiative by creating the Glass Ceiling Commission.

THE GLASS CEILING COMMISSION

Taking impetus from the Glass Ceiling Initiative, the Glass Ceiling Commission
was established to study how businesses filled management and decision-
making positions, corporate policies intended to provide career- and skill-
enhancing opportunities, and current compensation programs and packages.
The purpose of the studies was to develop recommendations aimed at
eliminating the barriers to furthering the careers of women and minorities—
simply stated, to break the glass ceiling. Almost unnoticed were two facts:
that there was increased awareness of the glass ceiling and that the U.S.
Congress had admitted that there was a glass ceiling. Membership of the
commission included 21 members—6 appointed by the President, 6 more
selected by a joint decision of the Speaker of the House and the Senate
Majority Leader, 1 member each appointed by the majority and minority
leaders of the House and Senate, and 2 House and 2 Senate members; it was
chaired by the secretary of labor. Consideration was given to appointing
representatives of women's and minority organizations, business leaders
recognized as having positive attitudes on equal employment opportunity,
and academics or others with expertise on employment issues, all intended
to create a workable balance. The commission was to hold at least five open
meetings in order to hear from a broad constituency base. These meetings
were set up for the purpose of information gathering on all employment
issues affecting women and men. The commission had no subpoena power,
but information from federal agencies was made available for its use.
Consultants and experts could be utilized within the budgetary power of the
commission. The act set a date of 15 months for submission of a report to the
president and Congress but at the same time gave the commission a four-
year life span. Considering the past history of a lack of sympathetic
understanding and awareness of the employment concerns of women and
minorities, establishment of the Glass Ceiling Commission was indeed a
remarkable event.

Even before the initial commission meeting, the scope of the body became
more clearly defined. First, the promotion of workforce diversity was
considered to be part of the group's function. As interviews for commission
members proceeded, the task was expanded to include small and medium-
sized businesses and a working relationship with the Small Business
Administration (SBA). Small business operations employed 54.3 million
Americans. Statistics showed that women had started new businesses at
twice the rate of men in the late 20th century, an indirect benefit of the glass
ceiling to women in business. Black-owned businesses had grown by about 40
percent, those owned by Hispanic Americans by 80 percent, and Asian
American-owned businesses had increased more than 90 percent. Pipelines
of Progress had identified a trend that women and minorities were judged on
what they had done, while men were evaluated on what they could do. The
findings of the Glass Ceiling Initiative combined with the data and various
hypotheses as the basis for the work of the commission.

By September 1992 commission members appointed included blacks,

women, a Hispanic American, and Henry Tang, an Asian American and vice
president of Solomon Brothers in New York. Two of the more outspoken
members were Carol Cox Wait, president and chief executive officer of the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and head of a consulting group,
and J. Alphonso Brown, founder of Brown Consulting Group. Senator Dole was
also a member. Prior to the first commission session, Secretary of Labor
Martin, as chair, sought input from the management of media outlets such as
the New York Times Company, Time Inc., and 20 college presidents. She also
indicated a third round of OFCCP compliance reviews would target a media
organization and an institution of higher education.

The initial meeting was held in Washington on October 2. Brown immediately

questioned the balance, whereby women's issues outweighed minority
concerns. Before an audience of mostly white women, Martin assured him the
commission would attempt to be sensitive to all groups. Tang warned of the
far-reaching economic impact of the effects of the glass ceiling. Future
meeting sites included Kansas City, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Dallas, and New
York, with others possible. In November compliance reviews were expanded
to include health care providers, financial services institutions, and law firms.
Following the presidential election of 1992, Martin resigned her cabinet post;
in the new administration of President Bill Clinton, the new Secretary of Labor
Robert Reich named Joyce Miller as executive director of the Glass Ceiling
Commission in April 1993. Miller had previously been vice president and
director of social services for the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, and she aggressively continued to expand the commission's focus. In
June a wider range of jobs other than top management positions was added
to the studies, especially those at the "mud floor," or dead-end, low-status,
low-wage jobs.

Other agencies and organizations held their own hearings or conferences on

the glass ceiling. In June 1993 the Small Business Committee in Congress
scheduled a hearing and, at the Women's National Democratic Club the same
month in Washington, a glass ceiling forum met with more revelations about
women in employment. For many women, stereotypes about female
employees, which led to a narrow band of acceptable behavior for women,
and differences in their work-related learning patterns contributed to the
ceiling. A survey showed that a greater percentage of women had a stronger
tendency toward personal development than men, but more emphasis was
needed in technical styles of learning. These and other conclusions moved
the ceiling beyond awareness and toward household recognition. Awareness
was seldom mentioned again as a problem.

The first commission meeting under President Clinton was held in late June
1993. In addition to reiterating a commitment to eliminating barriers, the
commission recognized a subtle but meaningful change, based on the
premise that the glass ceiling was built first and lower for minorities than for
women. The wording of the phrase women and minorities was altered to
minorities and women to reflect this emphasis.

A pivotal hearing was held in Dallas in early December. Covenants were

introduced as a new strategy for penetrating and breaking the ceiling. The
covenant was a corporate organizational agreement to disclose how women
and minorities were advancing into top management positions. The city
government of Dallas had encouraged over 200 businesses with contracts
with the city to go public in relation to minority advancement, and a women's
covenant was the next target. Mentoring programs were cited as a working
solution to minority advancement. Other directions included summer intern
programs for minorities and women as well as recruiting at traditionally
African American universities and colleges. While noting slow progress, the
commission heard from a broad range of businesses, from professional
basketball to law firms. Commission members did agree on one key
ingredient to success—commitment from top management. In a posthearing
interview, director Miller pointed to solutions, not the problem. She said the
focus had changed since initial DOL involvement to include anyone who
wanted to move up in the workforce. Native Americans and disabled workers
were part of the focus. Since 64 percent of new entrants into the job market
were women or minorities, the ceiling would eliminate a great many talents
and abilities of a large army of workers. Only a diversity program would
ensure the breaking down of barriers in employment—what Miller termed
"smart business." Although uncertain that new legislative proposals would
develop out of the commission's report, she did cite the need for increased
enforcement.

The April 1994 hearing was held in Cleveland, where the commission was told
that shattering the glass ceiling was indeed a daunting task. One witness
reported that the barriers were stronger than ever in retailing. Engineering
was seen as another area where progress lagged far behind expectations.
Minorities and women hired at the same entry-level pay as men rapidly fell
behind in a field (engineering) dominated by paternalistic attitudes. Evidence
was introduced that there was no equity in professional sports. The OFCCP
deputy director pointed out that generally chief executive officers now
understood the goal and that compliance reviews would number 40 in 1994
with an equal number primed for 1995.
In June 1994 Miller resigned as executive director to become an adviser on
health-care reform to Labor Secretary Reich. Rene Redwood was named the
new director. Redwood's prior experience included work as a consultant and
district office director to District of Columbia Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes
Norton. At the commission's August meeting in Atlanta, Redwood announced
that the commission would report by January 1,1995. She commented that
the report would be pragmatic and implementable and would not be shelved
away to ignore. At the final meeting in September, Secretary Reich repeated
earlier statements that the elimination of the glass ceiling had to start at the
top of organizations. He compared the ceiling to the imposing architectural
presence of the Capitol Dome in Washington. Despite the series of open
forums and various testimonies representing numerous minority interests,
many members of the Glass Ceiling Commission felt that they still lacked
substantial information necessary for their report to Congress on the causes
of discrimination. Member Carol Cox Wait expressed concern over wasting
three million taxpayer dollars by failing to identify the root causes of the
problem. Tang agreed, citing the lack of new knowledge. Several commission
members wanted to retain the January 1995 reporting date, but still be able
to provide additional materials and information at a later time.

During the fall of 1994, several important judgments against perpetrators of

the glass ceiling were announced. In September, Georgia Power, Marriott
International, and WordPerfect Corp. agreed to pay a total of nearly $500,000
to 68 women and minority employees who were paid a lower wage than
others doing comparable work. The Atlanta-based Georgia Power agreed to
pay more than $210,000 to 23 individuals, Marriott awarded $167,000 to 40
top-level staff members, and WordPerfect made payments of approximately
$140,000 to just five employees. These awards followed upon a September
1993 settlement of almost $600,000 paid to a group of 52 women by Fairfax
Hospital in northern Virginia. Another significant jury award in November
1994 paid $343,000 to a woman employed by Hondo Inc., of Chicago, a
franchisee of Coca-Cola Co. The woman, an 18-year manager with Hondo,
had been passed over for promotions on numerous occasions and was, as her
attorney concluded, a victim of the "old boys network."

COMMISSION REPORTS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 8, 1995, the commission voted to accept the final report. Nineteen
members voted in the affirmative, one did not indicate a vote, and another
withdrew from the commission due to time constraints. The report, Good for
Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital, was released on
March 16. Criticisms of the ceiling dominated the report, which indicated that
60 percent of the country's population is represented in 7 percent of the jobs.
The report labeled progress discouragingly slow despite recognition by
America's corporate leadership of the existence of a glass ceiling, a ceiling
the final report characterized as firmly in place as a barrier to the
advancement of women and minorities in upper management positions at
three levels—government, business, and society. Minorities and women
expressed dismay and anger at the ceiling, despite corporate promises to
correct the problems. In order to provide positive examples of breaking the
glass ceiling, the report included brief descriptions of dozens of practices
used by some companies to advance minorities and women.

The initial report was disappointing to the extent that recommendations were
not included. The Glass Ceiling Commission, after four years, still faced the
task of agreeing on recommendations to eliminate the barriers. But the
subsequent events of 1995 did not bring a consensus among commission
members until November. In June the Glass Ceiling Commission met in
Williamsburg to develop draft recommendations and to address the "women
only" concept, which ignored blacks. The commission surprised no one with
the finding that 97 percent of senior managers at Fortune 1000 industrials
and Fortune 500 companies are white or that 95 to 97 percent are male. The
fact that the remaining 3 to 5 percent are white females further reinforced
the decision to group blacks with women as those affected by the ceiling.
Commission members fell short of agreement on recommendations at the
Williamsburg session but did produce a working copy of proposals and
recommendations. The proposals included grouping women and blacks as
victims of discrimination and the elimination of what were referred to as"
twofers," or black women counting in two categories—blacks and women—of
those climbing the management ladder. More radical among the commission
proposals was a call to require the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) to disclose the race and ethnicity as well as the salary of all board
members and officers of publicly held companies. Other proposals centered
on a media campaign to present the positive aspects of women in the
workplace and to hold a national conference annually to promote and discuss
glass ceiling ideas and progress.

The draft recommendations that were developed were sweeping

generalizations such as eliminating the use of the word "minority" and
providing sensitivity training in the educational system. Others called for zero
tolerance of stereotyping and discrimination in the workplace, and for the
selection of executives committed to diversity. Another recommendation was
that incentives tied to breaking the glass ceiling should be related to salary.
Educational targets included incorporating the concept of diversity in
business school programs, reflecting more diversity in internship programs,
and using community business leaders as role models in the schools. The
general feeling was that there was little chance for reaching agreement on
any recommendations. A June meeting was planned.

June turned into July and the commission met in Washington, D.C., on July 21
and 22. Again, there was little accord on recommendations, but there was
consensus on several fronts. Commission attempts to address affirmative
action were relieved in part by President Clinton's endorsement of affirmative
action on the day prior to the commission meeting. There was agreement on
the need to review the Equal Pay Act and update OFCCP guidelines to reflect
15 years of change since the program began. The issue of the SEC releasing
gender and race information on officers and board members still created a
split among commission members. By the end of August 1995, the
commission had backed away from the SEC issue, and a draft list of
recommendations was circulating among its members. The commission did
develop a clear definition of affirmative action: "Affirmative Action is about
opening up the system to all and providing a climate where everyone has a
chance to succeed according to their efforts and abilities." The commission
also encouraged retaining women and minorities when companies downsized.

On November 22, 1995, the final report was released. Entitled A Solid
Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital, the report
included 12 recommendations, 8 aimed at businesses and the rest at the
federal government. Most were predictable but the simple fact that the
recommendations were now in final form and ready for publication was a
relief to the commission. Several business leaders, consulting firms, and
women's advocacy groups reacted with a mixture of approval, relief, and
concern.

The recommendations were sweeping generalities but all pointed to the

necessity of shattering the glass ceiling. The report urged business and the
government to work hand-in-hand to increase public awareness of
information on race and gender in the workforce. The federal government
was called on to "end systematic discrimination" by bringing pattern-and-
practice class action suits and expanding the investigation of federal
contractors.

The eight recommendations targeted at business predictably included the

recruitment and training of women and minorities and the incorporation of
diversity into strategic planning. The commission recommended that
corporate executives be educated about the strengths and weaknesses of a
diverse workforce and the challenges the future of the workplace presented.
Corporations were encouraged to initiate family-friendly policies and adopt
high performance standards for employees. All companies were also
encouraged to release data related to the gender and ethnicity of their
officers and board members. These recommendations did not represent new
thinking in the eyes of most observers but their incorporation into a report to
the president did lend legitimacy to the commission's findings.

Government recommendations included looking for ways to increase access

to diversity data; updating antidiscrimination policies to reflect current
workplace and social trends, practices, and laws; and closely examining those
OFCCP practices that were hindering the hiring and advancement of
minorities and women. A final commission recommendation focused on
government agencies that collected data on gender and race, calling on them
to discontinue the practice of double counting, whereby a black woman was
listed in two categories—by race and by sex.

REACTIONS TO THE COMMISSION'S

WORK AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

A sampling of reactions from several affected and interested groups indicates

a mixed review. The collection of data, which was not clearly specified, and
some of the final recommendations aimed at the federal government would
require legislation. The business recommendations were generally consistent
with current practices and policies and did not represent any realistic long-
term solutions. Edwin Bowman of Organization Resources Counselors, Inc.
called the recommendations balanced, realistic, and good blueprints for
action. Kelly Jenkins of the National Committee on Pay Equity felt the release
of gender and race information for upper level management personnel was
useless without accompanying salary data. Nancy Kreiter of Chicago-based
Women Employed approved of the report and its greater use of affirmative
action and the enforcement of discrimination laws. Gary D. Browne, director
of equality programs at New York's Interfaith Center on Corporate
Responsibility, was disappointed with the mild nature of the
recommendations. Browne was especially critical when it came to the OFCCP,
feeling that the recommendations did little to strengthen its role. Overall,
only time will tell if the final commission recommendations prove effective.

Since the Glass Ceiling Commission issued its recommendations, several

events help to illustrate the level of commitment to breaking the barriers
facing women and minorities in employment. Although these selected
instances do not represent a sweeping change in corporate practices and
attitudes, they are examples of how some employers have responded to
diversity, discrimination, and promotion issues. In January 1986 a Richmond
health carrier, Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield, agreed to pay more than
$500,000 to minority applicants and women employees under an OFCCP
settlement. The Miami Herald received a glass ceiling award, the Francis
Perkins/Elizabeth Hanford Dole National Award for Diversity and Excellence in
American Executive Management. Announced in March 1996, the award was
given for the newspaper's sustained commitment to promoting women and
minorities. Unfortunately, it was the last Perkins/Dole Award granted.

Nearly a year after the commission recommendations were announced,

Catalyst, a nonprofit research and advertising organization supported by
corporations, professional firms, and nonprofit foundations, published the
Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners. The report
concluded that only 57 of 2,430 top corporate titled positions were held by
women and that only 50 (2 percent) of the top corporate earners were
women. A December 1997 study by the International Labor Organization
concluded that internationally, more women were in middle management
positions but the glass ceiling still denied promotions to top positions. Women
in Canada and the United States had fared better than most in the world, and
the report was especially critical of Japan and the countries of the European
Union. Finally, a study completed for the United States Postal Service (USPS)
applauded USPS diversity efforts but concluded that the glass ceiling still
exists. National trends still support the findings of the USPS study.

For women and minorities, the glass ceiling is still a barrier to jobs in middle
and upper management. Like many government commissions, the Glass
Ceiling Commission spent considerable time, money, and effort providing
guidelines for businesses and government agencies in breaking the glass
ceiling. Unfortunately, too little has happened to stop trends that block
upward mobility for many Americans in the workplace, and the glass ceiling
remains firmly in place as an obstacle to advancement for women and
minorities.

SEE ALSO : Gender Discrimination ; Women in Business

[ Boyd Childress ]

FURTHER READING:

Bureau of National Affairs. Daily Labor Report. Washington: Bureau of

National Affairs, 1990-1999.

Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners. Catalyst

Corp., 1996.

Moore, Dorothy P. Women Entrepreneurs: Moving Beyond the Glass Ceiling.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997.

Morrison, Ann M., and others. Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach
the Top of America's Largest Corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
1987.

——. Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America's
Largest Corporations? 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992.

Stith, Anthony. Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Racism and Sexism in Corporate
America. Orange, NJ: Bryant & Dillon, 1996.
U.S. Department of Labor. Pipelines of Progress: An Update on the Glass
Ceiling Initiative. Washington: GPO, 1992.

——. A Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative. Washington: GPO, 1991.

U.S. Employment Standards Administration. The Glass Ceiling Initiative: Are

There Cracks in the Glass Ceiling? Washington: GPO, 1997.

U.S. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Good for Business: Making Full Use of
the Nation's Human Capital. Washington: GPO, 1995.

——. A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital:
Recommendations of the Glass Ceiling Commission. Washington: GPO, 1995.
Available from
www.ilr.comell.edu/library/e_archive/glassceiling/Recommend2.pdf .

Ads by Google

Is Jesus God? - Scholars Examine the Facts About Jesus' Claims to be God -
www.Y-Jesus.com/JesusGod

100% Cash Back Offer - Get 100% Cash Back on Canon Laser Printers. For
Details Visit Now! - canon.co.in

User Contributions:

Amelia De JesusMay 30, 2010 @ 9:21 pm

Evening, over 20 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1991, with a few minor
differences but everything looks the same as it was. This article has
important information.
It is 2010, maybe it is time to re-look at every piece and organizations
mentioned in this article and ask, "Where are they now"?
"What has changed since” Many surprises may present themselves like;
we are just where we were. Nothing has changed.

What has the Glass Ceiling Commission done since 1995? Does it still exist?
Ha! "Glass ceiling" was the term used to describe barriers that
prevent women and minorities from advancing to management positions in
corporations and organizations. The phrase was first used about 1985 or
1986. The term means the same thing today, starting with federal agencies
such as the Postal Service and all across the federal government agencies.
Hispanics is currently the largest minority group and growing, where are we?
I am a Hispanic, physically challenged woman, work for the federal
government and can attest, not one senior executive looks like me.

Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this
topic:

Name:E-mail:

Display email publicly

Security Code:

Comment: (50-4000 characters)

Glass Ceiling forum

« German Economic, Monetary and Social Union (GEMSU) Global Strategy »

Copyright © 2011 Advameg, Inc.

Read more: Glass Ceiling

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/For-Gol/Glass-
Ceiling.html#ixzz1AsYITOiS
 case study

NZ Post: Cracking the glass ceiling

A disproportionately small number of women in senior leadership positions

led the New Zealand Post Group to ask women staff what would help them
thrive and progress at work. The Women in Leadership initiative won the
Group the EEO Trust Work & Life/Diversity in Action Award 2008.

New Zealand Post Group CEO John Allen believes that intellectual curiosity is
inherent in good leadership. But it is not just curiosity that motivated New
Zealand Post Group to find out why it was missing out on leadership potential
through not having more women at senior levels.

"We had already made a commitment to quality employment practices in

order to achieve the business benefits of a versatile workplace," he says.
"This naturally extended to wanting to understand and address any obstacles
facing women who are in, or wish to pursue leadership roles here."

Video Clip: Work & Life/Diversity in Action Award Winner New Zealand Post
Group >>

New Zealand Post Group directly employs more than 10,000 people, 61 per
cent of whom are women. But as seniority increases, the proportion of female
employees decreases.

Three of the Post Group's directors are women .

Three women report directly to the CEO as part of the New Zealand Post
Group Executive Team of 10. Just over a quarter of senior managers reporting
directly to that Executive Team are women. Of all employees at senior
manager level, just 20 per cent are women.

Such gender disproportion is commonplace in New Zealand organisations,

but Post Group's response was far from commonplace. John Allen and his
Executive Team were determined to try and redress the imbalance through a
Women in Leadership programme across the Post Group.

Manager of HR Policy, Vicki Bazalo, explains the thinking behind the

programme. "We first wanted to adopt a systematic and rigorous approach to
gathering information which would enable us to lay a firm foundation for
developing appropriate initiatives that would make a difference," she says.

"It was important to gain insights from as many Post Group women as
possible, at targeted levels in the organisation. This included those who, for
whatever reason, were not yet in, or had actively decided not to pursue,
leadership roles."

As an appropriate survey mechanism was not available, Vicki worked with the
EEO Trust to develop an online survey which would access the views and
experiences of a broad cross-section of female employees across the Post
Group of companies.

Vicki says that an online survey offered a number of potential advantages.

"We could assure people that their responses and views would be
anonymous, so they could be completely frank. It also enabled us to obtain
hard empirical data which we could readily analyse and use to guide our
future programme of initiatives."
In May 2007, John Allen encouraged more than 800 Post Group women
managers, specialists and team leaders to complete the survey, saying, "I
trust you will take this opportunity to give your open feedback and raise any
issues you and other women face when it comes to taking your careers
further within Post.

Vicki says that John's support has made a huge impact on senior women
across New Zealand Post Group. "He's so very passionate and genuine about
building up the numbers of women at leadership levels - and it's not just lip-
service; he genuinely believes that it's a good thing for the organisation and
that we're missing out on a lot of opportunities if we don't have a better
representation of women in senior roles."

"It's been proven time and time again that it's good business sense to have
diversity - including women - at senior levels. Because John has led this
initiative from the start, people really knew that he was listening, that he was
interested in the results warts and all, and that some positive initiative would
result."

The survey explored women's experiences in seeking promotion, their views

on the organisation's support for men and women seeking leadership roles,
and their ideas on how to encourage more women to aspire to leadership
roles.

More than 500 women completed the survey, a response rate of 62 per cent,
indicating the survey topic's relevance. A number of reasons emerged as to
why women chose not to apply for leadership roles across the Post Group.
They included the lack of encouragement received, lack of individual
confidence, and the behaviour of some leaders.

In terms of what would help them, the most common themes women raised
were the need for encouragement with career development, including
networking and support, a mentoring programme and mechanisms to help
build their confidence.

The survey results were released in staff publications, a move that Vicki says
was important, as it demonstrated Post Group's commitment to transparency.
"We openly acknowledged that New Zealand Post Group businesses could do
a lot better in supporting women who wanted promotion to a senior
leadership role."

As a direct result of the women's requests for support and encouragement, a

number of initiatives were then developed and subsequently endorsed by the
Executive Team.

Vicki explains that the initiatives were agreed by the Executive Team as a
priority throughout the business. However, the company deliberately steered
away from setting targets for women's representation at senior management
levels.

"We didn't want it to be a quota system which could turn people off," she
says. "Furthermore, New Zealand Post Group is made up of a number of
businesses which are all very different, so having an across-the-board target
wouldn't be appropriate.

"It's more important that the businesses are visible in supporting the
development of women into senior leadership roles, than for them to meet a
gender representation target."

The key initiative Post Group has introduced so far is women's networking
sessions. The aim is to build a professional, thought-provoking and supportive
network across New Zealand Post Group to enable women to make contacts,
establish and extend working relationships and share ideas, advice and
success stories.

Vicki says that the initial sessions were so popular that extra sessions had to
be held. "As word spread to the South Island, we quickly responded to a plea
for a South Island session. The women attending that session brought the
total number of attendees at the first four forums to 135.
"We've scheduled further sessions in the main centres and are working out
how to meet the demand from those in provincial centres."

The feedback from the sessions has been overwhelmingly positive. One
woman wrote that it encouraged her "to look at my career frontier and
recognise this is an organisation that gives opportunity. What I'm doing
differently as a result is believing more in myself as a leader, being more
courageous and determined, and looking at taking up leadership
opportunities."

Another wrote: "I found this very relevant as I'm a working mother. It was
extremely encouraging to know that you can still be successful in the
workforce even though you have children."

The Women's Network meetings will increasingly focus on addressing specific

skills or information gaps identified by women such as networking
techniques, confidence building, work-life balance and career planning.

Vicki says the Women's Network benefits the New Zealand Post Group by
providing an opportunity for women from different parts of the business to
meet and share ideas and inspiration.

New Zealand Post Group CEO John Allen believes that intellectual curiosity is
inherent in good leadership. But it is not just curiosity that motivated New
Zealand Post Group to find out why it was missing out on leadership potential
through not having more women at senior levels.
"We had already made a commitment to quality employment practices in
order to achieve the business benefits of a versatile workplace," he says.
"This naturally extended to wanting to understand and address any obstacles
facing women who are in, or wish to pursue leadership roles here."

Video Clip: Work & Life/Diversity in Action Award Winner New Zealand Post
Group >>

New Zealand Post Group directly employs more than 10,000 people, 61 per
cent of whom are women. But as seniority increases, the proportion of female
employees decreases.

Three of the Post Group's directors are women .

Three women report directly to the CEO as part of the New Zealand Post
Group Executive Team of 10. Just over a quarter of senior managers reporting
directly to that Executive Team are women. Of all employees at senior
manager level, just 20 per cent are women.

Such gender disproportion is commonplace in New Zealand organisations,

but Post Group's response was far from commonplace. John Allen and his
Executive Team were determined to try and redress the imbalance through a
Women in Leadership programme across the Post Group.

Manager of HR Policy, Vicki Bazalo, explains the thinking behind the

programme. "We first wanted to adopt a systematic and rigorous approach to
gathering information which would enable us to lay a firm foundation for
developing appropriate initiatives that would make a difference," she says.

"It was important to gain insights from as many Post Group women as
possible, at targeted levels in the organisation. This included those who, for
whatever reason, were not yet in, or had actively decided not to pursue,
leadership roles."
As an appropriate survey mechanism was not available, Vicki worked with the
EEO Trust to develop an online survey which would access the views and
experiences of a broad cross-section of female employees across the Post
Group of companies.

Vicki says that an online survey offered a number of potential advantages.

"We could assure people that their responses and views would be
anonymous, so they could be completely frank. It also enabled us to obtain
hard empirical data which we could readily analyse and use to guide our
future programme of initiatives."

In May 2007, John Allen encouraged more than 800 Post Group women
managers, specialists and team leaders to complete the survey, saying, "I
trust you will take this opportunity to give your open feedback and raise any
issues you and other women face when it comes to taking your careers
further within Post.

Vicki says that John's support has made a huge impact on senior women
across New Zealand Post Group. "He's so very passionate and genuine about
building up the numbers of women at leadership levels - and it's not just lip-
service; he genuinely believes that it's a good thing for the organisation and
that we're missing out on a lot of opportunities if we don't have a better
representation of women in senior roles."

"It's been proven time and time again that it's good business sense to have
diversity - including women - at senior levels. Because John has led this
initiative from the start, people really knew that he was listening, that he was
interested in the results warts and all, and that some positive initiative would
result."

The survey explored women's experiences in seeking promotion, their views

on the organisation's support for men and women seeking leadership roles,
and their ideas on how to encourage more women to aspire to leadership
roles.

More than 500 women completed the survey, a response rate of 62 per cent,
indicating the survey topic's relevance. A number of reasons emerged as to
why women chose not to apply for leadership roles across the Post Group.
They included the lack of encouragement received, lack of individual
confidence, and the behaviour of some leaders.

In terms of what would help them, the most common themes women raised
were the need for encouragement with career development, including
networking and support, a mentoring programme and mechanisms to help
build their confidence.

The survey results were released in staff publications, a move that Vicki says
was important, as it demonstrated Post Group's commitment to transparency.
"We openly acknowledged that New Zealand Post Group businesses could do
a lot better in supporting women who wanted promotion to a senior
leadership role."

As a direct result of the women's requests for support and encouragement, a

number of initiatives were then developed and subsequently endorsed by the
Executive Team.

Vicki explains that the initiatives were agreed by the Executive Team as a
priority throughout the business. However, the company deliberately steered
away from setting targets for women's representation at senior management
levels.

"We didn't want it to be a quota system which could turn people off," she
says. "Furthermore, New Zealand Post Group is made up of a number of
businesses which are all very different, so having an across-the-board target
wouldn't be appropriate.

"It's more important that the businesses are visible in supporting the
development of women into senior leadership roles, than for them to meet a
gender representation target."
The key initiative Post Group has introduced so far is women's networking
sessions. The aim is to build a professional, thought-provoking and supportive
network across New Zealand Post Group to enable women to make contacts,
establish and extend working relationships and share ideas, advice and
success stories.

Vicki says that the initial sessions were so popular that extra sessions had to
be held. "As word spread to the South Island, we quickly responded to a plea
for a South Island session. The women attending that session brought the
total number of attendees at the first four forums to 135.

"We've scheduled further sessions in the main centres and are working out
how to meet the demand from those in provincial centres."

The feedback from the sessions has been overwhelmingly positive. One
woman wrote that it encouraged her "to look at my career frontier and
recognise this is an organisation that gives opportunity. What I'm doing
differently as a result is believing more in myself as a leader, being more
courageous and determined, and looking at taking up leadership
opportunities."

Another wrote: "I found this very relevant as I'm a working mother. It was
extremely encouraging to know that you can still be successful in the
workforce even though you have children."

The Women's Network meetings will increasingly focus on addressing specific

skills or information gaps identified by women such as networking
techniques, confidence building, work-life balance and career planning.

Vicki says the Women's Network benefits the New Zealand Post Group by
providing an opportunity for women from different parts of the business to
meet and share ideas and inspiration.

A qualitative case study on the glass

ceiling and African-American women in
banking
by Simmons, Leola, D.M., UNIVERSITY OF
PHOENIX, 2009
Abstract:

African-Americans rank second among majority groups in the

U.S. (Wallace and Villa, 2003), representing a significant
number of employees available for hire. In 2005, African-
American women occupied 9,014,000 positions in the labor
force, of which 2,483,000 were administrative and
managerial positions (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005).
African-American women occupied only 1.6% of the 10,092
corporate office positions within Fortune 500 companies
(Catalyst, 2004a). African-American women are over-
represented in service professions that include clerical and
sales positions, and limited in positions such as officers,
managers, professionals and technicians (Catalyst, 2003).
The problem is that African-American women occupy less
than 3% of all managerial positions and only 0.9% of senior
positions in the U.S. (Bell, 2004). This qualitative case study
explored why African-American women are
underrepresented in senior level positions by interviewing 20
African-American females occupying or pursuing executive
level positions within the banking industry in the Dallas-Fort
Worth Metropolis. The following themes emerged from in-
depth interviews: career advancement; leadership styles;
glass ceiling; corporate culture; networking and mentoring;
relocation and recommendations. The results from the
individual interviews and patterns from the collected data
revealed perceived personal and professional factors
responsible for enhancing and hindering the career
advancement of women, particularly African-African women.
Results of this study suggest that there are actions women
and organizational leaders can implement to increase the
number of women executive leaders in the banking
industry.